The potential for artificial intelligence to reshape the labor market is dominating discussion in tech circles, sparked by a viral essay that compares the coming disruption to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Something Big is Coming,” penned by Matt Shumer, cofounder and CEO of OthersideAI, has garnered over 60 million views on X as of Thursday, February 13, 2026 and ignited a debate among industry leaders about the speed and scale of AI’s advance.
Shumer’s 5,000-word post argues that AI’s transformative power will extend far beyond the tech sector, impacting industries in ways not yet fully understood. He suggests a 20% chance of a significant upheaval warrants proactive preparation. The essay’s central claim – that AI’s impact will be “much bigger” than COVID – has drawn both agreement and skepticism.
David Haber, a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, offered a pragmatic take, highlighting the immediate benefits of AI integration in the workplace. “’I used AI to do this analysis in an hour instead of three days is going to be the most valuable person in the room.’ Not eventually. Right now,” Haber posted on X, quoting from Shumer’s essay. He emphasized the importance of acquiring AI skills to remain competitive.
Alexis Ohanian, founder of Reddit, voiced his support with a simple “Great writeup. Strongly agree.” However, Ohanian also recently underscored the need for Reddit to maintain its human element as it incorporates AI-driven tools, including features for summarizing discussions and refining ad targeting. This suggests a recognition that technological advancement must be balanced with the preservation of human connection and value.
Not all reactions have been positive. Eric Markowitz, managing partner and director of research at Nightview Capital, countered Shumer’s argument with an essay of his own, criticizing what he sees as a relentless pursuit of efficiency at the expense of human value. Markowitz argued that the focus on speed and automation within the financial and tech industries has created a “feedback loop of short-termism” that conflates efficiency with genuine progress. He illustrated his point by stating he could replace his two research assistants with AI, but acknowledged their contributions extend beyond quantifiable output, bringing “meaning” to his work and fostering discovery.
Todd McLees, founder of HumanSkills.AI, acknowledged the validity of Shumer’s warning but cautioned against viewing AI as a simple solution to complex problems. He likened Shumer’s advice to “telling someone the floodwaters are rising and handing them a better bucket,” suggesting that while AI can provide tools for coping with change, it doesn’t address the fundamental need for purpose and direction. McLees emphasized the increasing importance of uniquely human skills – defining values and purpose – in a world where intelligence is becoming increasingly abundant. “What do you bring when the machine can do the work? That’s the only question that matters when intelligence is abundant,” he wrote.
Gary Marcus, Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at NYU and founder of Robust.AI, was more critical, labeling Shumer’s essay “weaponized hype” lacking in supporting data. Marcus challenged the claim that current AI can reliably develop complex applications without errors, citing studies that question the actual productivity gains offered by AI tools. He accused Shumer of presenting a “completely one-sided” view, omitting concerns widely expressed within the AI community.
Vishal Misra, Vice Dean of Computing and Artificial Intelligence at Columbia University, offered a more tempered perspective, arguing that the anxieties surrounding AI are, at least for now, overstated. Misra suggested that seemingly sentient AI behaviors are often simply the result of training data, rather than genuine intelligence. Drawing a historical parallel, he pointed to the invention of the camera and its impact on portrait painters. Rather than eliminating the profession, the camera liberated painters to explore new artistic styles, such as impressionism and cubism. “The camera didn’t kill painting. It liberated it,” Misra concluded, suggesting a similar dynamic could unfold with AI and the future of work.
The debate surrounding Shumer’s essay underscores the uncertainty and complexity surrounding AI’s potential impact. While some see AI as a catalyst for increased productivity and innovation, others warn of the risks of prioritizing efficiency over human value and purpose. The conversation is likely to intensify as AI technology continues to evolve and its influence expands across industries.
